🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) It is not even an ordinary equation with a solution: expanding the left-hand side gives 3x − 12, and 3x − 12 = 3x − 4 would require −12 = −4, which is never true. — Expanding the left-hand side, 3(x − 4) = 3x − 12. Setting this equal to the right-hand side, 3x − 12 = 3x − 4, gives −12 = −4 once the 3x terms are removed from both sides — a statement that is never true, so no value of x satisfies the equation at all, and it is certainly not an identity. The option about substituting a specific value misunderstands algebraic expansion, which holds for every x, not one chosen value. The option matching the first term wrongly assumes that is enough to prove equivalence. The option about multiplying the 4 by 3 on both sides is nonsensical, since there is only one bracket to expand, on the left-hand side.
2. (d) 25 — Method: the median is estimated at position n ÷ 2 in the cumulative frequency table, then interpolated across the class it falls in: lower boundary, plus the fraction of the way through the class, times the class width. Working: there are 80 sacks, so the median sits at position 80 ÷ 2 = 40. Before the class 20 ≤ m < 30 the cumulative frequency is 22, and by the end of it, it is 58, so this class holds the 40th sack; its frequency is 58 − 22 = 36 and its width is 30 − 20 = 10. The extra distance needed into the class is 40 − 22 = 18, and 18 ÷ 36 × 10 = 5, so the median is 20 + 5 = 25. Answer: the estimated median mass is 25 kg. Watch which numbers the interpolation uses: reading off just the lower boundary of the median class, 20, ignores how far into that class the 40th sack actually falls; treating n ÷ 2 = 40 itself as the median mass mistakes a position in the list for a mass in kilograms; and using the target position, 40, as the extra distance into the class instead of subtracting the sacks already counted changes the calculation to 20 + 40 ÷ 36 × 10. That comes to 20 + 11.1 = 31.1, overshooting the class because it never subtracts the 22 sacks already counted before it.
3. (b) (6, −8) — Method: a scalar multiple of m has the same ratio between its top and bottom numbers as m does. Working: m = (3, −4); multiplying both parts by 2 gives 2 × 3 = 6 and 2 × (−4) = −8, so (6, −8) is a scalar multiple of m. Answer: (6, −8). The vector (6, −4) needs a multiplier of 2 for the top number but only 1 for the bottom number, so it is not a multiple. The vector (−6, −8) needs a multiplier of −2 for the top number but 2 for the bottom number, so it is not a multiple. The vector (9, −8) needs a multiplier of 3 for the top number but 2 for the bottom number, so it is not a multiple.
4. (a) (4, 1) — y = −f(x) reflects the graph of y = f(x) in the x-axis: every point (x, y) maps to (x, −y). Applying this to (4, −1): the x-coordinate stays 4, and the y-coordinate −1 becomes its negative, 1. Leaving the y-coordinate unchanged skips the reflection entirely, giving (4, −1); reflecting the x-coordinate instead, or reflecting both, mixes this up with a reflection in the y-axis or a rotation, giving (−4, −1) or (−4, 1).
5. (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.
6. (b) 8 — Method: a circle centred on the origin has equation x² + y² = r², where r is the radius, so the number on the right-hand side is the square of the radius and not the radius itself. Working: comparing x² + y² = 64 with x² + y² = r² gives r² = 64, so r = √64 = 8. Answer: the radius is 8. The distractors: 64 is r² read straight off the equation as though the right-hand side were the radius, which is the commonest error on this form; 32 comes from halving 64, treating the right-hand side as a diameter that has to be halved; 16 is the diameter, 2 × 8, quoted in place of the radius.
7. (b) Translate +5 in x, then reflect in the x-axis. — Translating y = x² by 5 units in the positive x-direction gives y = (x − 5)². Reflecting this in the x-axis, which replaces y with −y, gives y = −(x − 5)², matching the target. Using a translation of −5 in x instead gives y = (x + 5)², and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −(x + 5)² — the sign inside the bracket is wrong. Reflecting in the y-axis first does nothing to y = x², since (−x)² = x², so translating afterwards only reaches y = (x − 5)² with no negative sign at all. Translating by 5 units in y instead of x gives y = x² + 5, and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −x² − 5, a different curve altogether — a vertical shift does not create the (x − 5)² term the target equation needs.
8. (c) 7/19 — Method: 'at least two black' covers two cases — all three black, and exactly two black. Work out the probability of each along a tree, add them, then use P(all three black | at least two black) = P(all three black) ÷ P(at least two black). Working: P(all three black) = 9/13 × 8/12 × 7/11 = 504/1716 = 42/143. For exactly two black, one order is black, black, white = 9/13 × 8/12 × 4/11 = 288/1716; the white sock could be drawn first, second or third, so there are 3 such orders, giving 3 × 288/1716 = 864/1716 = 72/143. P(at least two black) = 42/143 + 72/143 = 114/143. P(all three black | at least two black) = (42/143) ÷ (114/143) = 42/114 = 7/19. Answer: 7/19. Watch out: stopping at 42/143 gives the unconditioned probability that all three are black — it ignores that you already know at least two of them are. Dividing by the 'exactly two black' probability on its own gives 7/12, and forgets that the all-black outcomes are themselves part of the 'at least two black' group, so they must be inside the denominator, not left out of it. And 7/11 answers a different, easier question — the probability the THIRD sock is black given the FIRST TWO specifically are black — not 'at least two of the three, in any order, are black'.
9. (c) a + (1/2)c — Method: OABC is a parallelogram, so OB = OA + AB, and since AB is equal and parallel to OC, AB = c; this gives OB = a + c. M is the midpoint of AB, so AM = (1/2)AB = (1/2)c. Working: OM = OA + AM = a + (1/2)c. Answer: OM = a + (1/2)c. Adding the whole of AB instead of half of it gives a + c, which is OB, not OM; halving the whole diagonal OB instead of just AB gives (1/2)a + (1/2)c, the midpoint of OB rather than of AB; and flipping the sign on the c-term gives a − (1/2)c, which points back the wrong way along AB. Halve only the side you are told to halve, and check the sign before you commit to an answer.
10. (c) A reflection in the y-axis — Replacing x with −x reflects the graph in the y-axis: each point (x, y) maps to (−x, y). Reflecting the OUTPUT instead, y = −f(x), gives a reflection in the x-axis — that is a different function. Combining both reflections gives a rotation of 180° about the origin, and reflecting in the line y = x swaps the x- and y-values, which is what produces the inverse function, not f(−x). Check first which side of f the minus sign sits on.
11. (d) 44 — Method: a cumulative frequency counts everything below a value, so the frequency of a class is the running total at the top of the class minus the running total at the bottom of it. Working: the running total below 20 kg is 96 and the running total below 10 kg is 52, so the number of boxes in the class 10 ≤ m < 20 is 96 − 52 = 44. Answer: 44 boxes. The distractors: 96 comes from quoting the running total at 20 kg itself, which counts every box below 20 kg rather than only those in this class; 34 comes from subtracting the wrong pair, 52 − 18, which gives the class 5 ≤ m < 10 instead; 54 comes from subtracting from the grand total, 150 − 96, which gives the boxes of 20 kg or more.
12. (d) y = −f(x + 2) has a maximum turning point at (1, 5). — y = f(x + 2) translates the graph 2 units in the negative x-direction, so the turning point's x-coordinate moves from 3 to 1; reflecting in the x-axis then negates the y-coordinate, turning −5 into 5, and also turns a minimum into a maximum — giving a true maximum turning point at (1, 5). Translating the root at x = 1 in the wrong direction, adding 2 instead of subtracting it, gives x = 3, but the true image root is at 1 − 2 = −1, so that statement is false. Keeping the coordinates (1, 5) correct but forgetting that reflecting in the x-axis turns a minimum into a maximum gives a false "minimum turning point" statement. Getting the reflection's effect on the turning-point type right (a maximum) but translating the x-coordinate in the wrong direction, using 3 + 2 = 5 instead of 3 − 2 = 1, gives a false statement at (5, 5).
13. (b) 3 and 4 — Method: the graph of f(x) is continuous, so where it crosses the x-axis the value of f(x) changes sign; substitute consecutive integers until one value is negative and the next is positive. Working: f(2) = 8 − 6 − 20 = −18, f(3) = 27 − 9 − 20 = −2 and f(4) = 64 − 12 − 20 = 32. The sign changes from negative to positive between x = 3 and x = 4, so the solution lies there. Answer: 3 and 4. The distractors: 2 and 3 comes from ignoring the −3x term and solving x³ = 20, whose root is 2.71, one interval to the left; 6 and 7 comes from reading x³ as x² and solving x² − 3x − 20 = 0, whose positive root is 6.22; 4 and 5 is the interval immediately after the change of sign, named by a candidate who finds f(4) positive and quotes the interval beginning there instead of the one across which the sign actually turned.
14. (c) Translate +1 in y; new range 0 ≤ y ≤ 2 — Adding 1 to sin x translates the graph 1 unit in the positive y-direction, and every y-value on the range increases by 1: −1 + 1 = 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, giving a new range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 2. A translation in the x-direction would not add anything to the y-values, so 'Translate +1 in x; range unchanged' correctly leaves the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 for that (wrong) transformation, but the transformation itself is not what y = sin x + 1 shows. 'Translate +1 in y; new range −2 ≤ y ≤ 0' correctly spots the translation but subtracts 1 from each bound instead of adding it. 'Reflect in the x-axis' mistakes the transformation for a reflection rather than a translation; reflecting sin x in the x-axis does leave the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 unchanged in size, but that is not the transformation y = sin x + 1 actually applies.
15. (a) 9/25 — Method: P(badminton | tennis) = n(tennis and badminton) ÷ n(tennis) — restrict to the tennis-players, then find what fraction of them also play badminton. Working: n(tennis and badminton) = 18, n(tennis) = 50, so P(badminton | tennis) = 18/50 = 9/25. Answer: 9/25. Watch out: dividing by 40 (the badminton total) finds P(tennis | badminton) instead of P(badminton | tennis) — the wrong direction. Dividing by 90 (all the members named in the question) ignores that you already know the member plays tennis. And dividing by 72 (50 + 40 − 18, the number who play at least one of the two sports) answers a question about the union, not the condition you were given.
16. (c) Only x = 5 satisfies 3x + 5 = 20, not every value of x. — 3x + 5 = 20 is only true when x = 5, since 3 × 5 + 5 = 20; for any other value of x the two sides are not equal, so it is an equation, not an identity. Saying it cannot be simplified confuses simplifying with the equation/identity distinction, which is about how many values of x make it true. Saying it has an = sign is not a valid test, since identities are also written with an = or ≡ sign. A number on the right-hand side does not decide it either — what matters is whether both sides match for every value of x, not the form of the right-hand side.
17. (a) y = −2x + 3 — Method: find the step in the outputs for each step of 1 in the input — falling outputs mean a negative multiplier — then read off the output when the input is 0, because that is the number added on. Working: the outputs 5, 3, 1, −1 fall by 2 each time x rises by 1, so x is multiplied by −2; the output at x = 0 is 3, so 3 is added. Answer: y = −2x + 3, checked at x = 2 by −2 × 2 + 3 = −1. The distractors: y = 2x + 3 comes from taking the size of the step, 2, as the multiplier and ignoring the fact that the outputs are falling; y = −2x − 3 comes from using the correct multiplier but writing the number added on as −3 instead of the output 3 listed at x = 0; y = −x + 4 comes from taking the multiplier as −1, its size read from the step of 1 in the inputs instead of the step of 2 in the outputs and its sign from the fact that the outputs fall, and then fitting the number added on to the pair x = −1, y = 5.
18. (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.